Bureaucracy kills democracy

By Reinier van Hoffen

"As long as states represent the highest form of political authority, it will be impossible to channel human self-interest toward common solutions." This is stated by Rob Annandale, a Vancouver-based journalist and contributor to the Guardian and a.o. to this debate at The Broker. I admire this statement as it  acknowledges  the bankruptcy of the state that is likely to follow the  failure of the  greed-based economic-growth model that it has attempted  to serve against all odds. The way of dealing with this that Rob Annandale arrives at in his article is a global democratic structure  that does not  rely on the nation-state system: "an additional body with  global  loyalties". He calls on INGOs to work together towards that  end.

However, he also acknowledges that such a centralization of power will  have some repercussions and challenges that he does not dwell on in his  article. I want to take it from there and while agreeing with his  analysis about the state in its current shape, I have a sense that the  solutions are to be found in the opposite direction and not necessarily require a replacement of the political representation model that  underpins the state. It rather requires a transformation of it, renewing  the social contract it requires to function properly. Firstly the focus  should not be on the power structure but rather on the power base.  Secondly, the means by which a new form of governance has to come into existence is by a transformation of the current governance structure. To  start with the latter, the UN reform that Annandale also referred to is  not the kind of transformation I am looking for. If we leave it to the  system to reinvent itself, change won't happen. I hope to illustrate  this by taking an example of the water sector.
  
Preferential pathways

The metaphor of preferential pathways that are usually deepened by  running water should be hinting us that system reform does not change  the system; it only reforms the rules by which the same system is  governed. So, what is involved in system change then?

Taking the metaphor a little bit further, we should be looking for  the source of the water, which is tax-payers money. This source is  obtain by a sophisticated channel diversion system that manages to  capture a substantial part of the river of people’s resources for the  purpose of 'serving the public interest'. This upstream diversion takes  the water to an artificial reservoir that is being used to gear up a  huge 'hydro-power plant' to keep the public administrations of this  world alive and running. Occasionally the reservoir is also used to  supplement water directly to constituencies downstream that experience  extraordinary stresses.

As long as everyone enjoys this power (clean running tap water,  electricity, schools, hospitals, infrastructure that creates mobility  and supports people’s empowerment) everyone is happy and glad that this  system exists. However, when major groups are excluded from the power  grid, or even worse, when the grid no longer serves the public interest,  those that have allowed to syphon off some of their earnings for public  services will revolt and replace the government. And in case all  political leaders have identified themselves with the system rather then  with the people it serves, the whole governance system needs  replacement.
  
Traditional diversion systems and modern resource mobilization

For a long time our governance system could be compared with a  nicely controlled irrigation system. However, in focusing on the system  we totally forgot about the river water that takes it course, always  looking for lower grounds. It reminds me of my masters-thesis research  in the Terai in Nepal. A World Bank funded deep-tube well irrigation system initially supplemented the farmer managed irrigation system of  rice farmers (rich and poor, big and small, investors from India and  settlers that moved down from the hills).

The possibility to tap into this resource turned out highly  beneficial in critical periods like the transplantation period of rice  (my research period). The system managed to mobilize the aquiver in  times the rains had not started yet. Delays in rainfall were problematic  as it would cause the rice seedlings grow to big and become useless for transplanting.

As long as the system was subsidized everybody was happy to use it, and  even other uses of the fresh water (like by myself, bathing in cold  water amidst a hot humid climate) were quickly developed and displayed a  tremendous adaptation capacity of the population. However, when the  government decided (under pressure of the Structural Adjustment Programs  of IMF and the same World Bank) that it was time to handover the  systems to its 'beneficiaries' it was clear that the costs did not  outweigh the benefits. The engines running the deep tube wells were  difficult to maintain and running costs were high as petrol prices were  soaring. The majority of deep tube-wells were sealed off as a  consequence and the traditional system was revived to quite an extend.
  
Governance systems and citizens perception

Let's leave the metaphor here. What does this tell us about our current  governance crisis? It is increasingly acknowledged that governance got  so complicated that it is hard for the average citizen to understand its  complexity and see its functions for society. At the same time, lack of  transparency has also encouraged a different use of the resources, not  in line with it original intend: serving the public interest. Advocacy  on behalf of groups in society turned into lobby for the sake of your  own business. This situation raises eyebrows with many ordinary citizens  that see no longer the returns of their hard labor, allowing the  popular vote to gain ground. Hillary Clinton recognized the need for  re-focusing on civil interest while launching here QDDR report "Leading through civilian power" in November 2010. She recognized that  leading a nation requires dealing with unhealthy bureaucracies and  dismantling structures that preserve inequality situations. Through  decentralization efforts centralized bureaucracies have tried to get  closer to citizens. However, if the political system itself is no longer  a representation of citizens’ values, drives and motives, these  attempts are destined to fail (in developed as well as developing  countries) and democracies will be killed by bureaucracies.
  
Emerging democratic powers

The social media and resulting Occupy movements are showing that  citizens challange the status quo. Where the last code of conduct for  good governance prescribes a customer dissatisfaction procedure to be  included, this won't suffice in the new world order of twitter and  social media. Already people have discovered that sending twitter messages around is a much more effective way of dealing with  inefficiencies of bureaucracies (be it in companies or public bodies).  It is high time we develop a number of horizontal accountability  mechanisms that make fully use of these new tools but also deal with  potential dangers and pitfalls of it. First of course the use of these mechanisms to challenge the status quo will be appreciated. However,  some contours of a dictatorship of the loudest voice already appear and  once again power dynamics have to be analyzed in order to see how that  will impact justice and inequality around the world.
  
Horizon 2020 showing signs of realism

It is here where the connection needs to be made to the Knowledge and Innovation agenda of Europe. The preparations for the period 2014-2018 are in full swing  and the fine tuning will be done at a conference in Brussels on January  31^st. Quite a number of governments in Europe have realized  that Societal Challenges require our utmost attention in our knowledge  and innovation agenda. This is reflected in the provisional budget  allocated for it (31,7 billion out of a total of 87,7 billion). Though  this being a laudable step towards a more democratic Europe, it’s focus  remains European. Though from  a competitive angle Europe’s position in  the rest of the world is being analyzed, more consideration could have  been given to the connection between democratic movements world-wide and  Europe’s own democratic challenges. That would bring Europe on board of  the international policy agenda and prevents further segregation. It  might even be to the benefit of Europe’s own survival, though it would  be painful if still our self-interest (enlightened or not) will motivate  us to make the connection. In such cases a ‘power surge’ may be the result.